The Calcutta High Court has given a major reprieve to Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari, quashing several criminal cases registered against him across West Bengal. Justice Jay Sengupta, delivering the verdict on 24 October 2025, observed that the spate of FIRs filed after Adhikari’s switch from the Trinamool Congress to the BJP bore clear signs of political vendetta.
The ruling, running over 300 pages, came after marathon hearings on two writ petitions and one criminal revision filed by Adhikari. All proceedings were clubbed together, given that they arose from overlapping facts and allegations.
Background
Adhikari-once a senior Trinamool Congress leader-joined the Bharatiya Janata Party in December 2020 and went on to defeat Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in the fiercely contested Nandigram constituency in 2021. Soon after, a series of criminal complaints emerged across the State, ranging from charges of bribery and unlawful assembly to defamation and atrocities under the SC/ST Act.
Adhikari approached the High Court, asserting that twenty-three FIRs were 'manufactured with political malice' to harass him for crossing party lines. 'Every case was a carbon copy of the last,' his counsel Mr Billwadal Bhattacharyya argued, adding that the police acted as 'an extended arm of the ruling party.'
The State, represented by Advocate General Kishor Dutta and senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, countered that the FIRs disclosed cognisable offences and must be investigated in the ordinary course of law. “Political stature cannot grant immunity from criminal law,” they submitted.
Court's Observations
Justice Sengupta undertook a detailed comparison of all 23 cases, noting that many complaints were "word-for-word identical," lodged within minutes of each other in different police stations. Some, the judge said, pertained to rallies where no violence or damage was recorded; others revived incidents closed years earlier as accidental or suicidal deaths.
"The chronology of events speaks louder than pleadings," the Bench remarked. "It is impossible to overlook that the tide of FIRs rose only after the petitioner changed his political allegiance. The criminal process appears to have been weaponised to subdue dissent."
Referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court reiterated that proceedings actuated by mala fide or political rivalry fall squarely within the categories warranting quashing. It also recalled its earlier interim orders of 2021 and 2022 that had stayed investigation, noting that even the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with those stays.
On two complaints invoking the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Justice Sengupta found no reference in the alleged speech to caste or tribe.
"Every insult to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member is not an offence under the Act unless it is because of such membership," the judge said, echoing the Supreme Court’s caution in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024).
The Court also took exception to the delay and lack of preliminary inquiry in several FIRs, terming the approach "contrary to Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.." It noted that police had registered some complaints after a gap of nearly three years while others were filed within hours without any verification.
"The extraordinary zeal with which the police registered these cases," Justice Sengupta wrote, "cannot be reconciled with their inertia in ordinary matters. Such selective enthusiasm betrays bias."
Decision
Concluding that a pattern of persecution had been established, the Court quashed 17 of the 23 FIRs outright, holding them to be 'manifestly attended with mala fide.' For the remaining six-where some material evidence existed-the Court directed that the investigation be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure neutrality.
"The State police has irretrievably lost its credibility in the eyes of this Court with regard to the petitioner," the Bench declared. It further restrained the police from registering any fresh case against Adhikari without prior leave of the High Court, citing past misuse of process.
In a parting note, Justice Sengupta observed:
"A democracy flourishes not by silencing its Opposition but by letting it speak. Criminal law cannot be a weapon in political combat."
The order ends with directions that certified copies be sent to the CBI Director and the State Chief Secretary for immediate compliance.
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
